Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justices P. S, Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, on Wednesday (January 21, 2026), held that subordinate legislation becomes enforceable only from the date it is published in the Official Gazette, and that the executive cannot substitute Gazette promulgation with other modes that attach legal consequences. The appeals arose from a challenge by steel importers to a government notification introducing a minimum import price on certain steel products; although it was dated and uploaded online on February 5, 2016, it was published in the Official Gazette on February 11, 2016. Setting aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment, the Court treated February 11, 2016 as the “date of this notification” for the letters-of-credit exemption and held that the minimum import price could not be applied to imports under irrevocable letters of credit opened before that date, subject to the policy’s transitional conditions.

The appellants were private limited companies engaged in importing and trading mild steel products, which were freely importable prior to February 2016 under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015–2020.

Also Read: Requiring Accused To Appear On Every Appeal Hearing Unwarranted After Sentence Suspension And Bail : Supreme Court

Between late January and early February 2016, the appellants entered into firm sale contracts with overseas suppliers and opened irrevocable letters of credit on 5 February 2016. On the same date, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade uploaded a notification on its website introducing a Minimum Import Price, with a note indicating that it was to be published in the Official Gazette. The notification was published in the Gazette on 11 February 2016.

The appellants applied for registration of their letters of credit seeking transitional protection under the Foreign Trade Policy. They contended that the notification could not apply to imports covered by letters of credit opened prior to its publication. The Union of India maintained that the relevant date was the date mentioned in the notification and that the exemption was unavailable to the appellants.

The Court examined the statutory requirement governing the enforceability of delegated legislation and noted that "Delegated legislation, unlike plenary legislation enacted by the Parliament, is framed in the executive chambers without open legislative debate. The requirement of publication in the Gazette, therefore, serves a dual constitutional purpose i.e. (a) it ensures accessibility and notice to those governed by the law, and (b) it ensures accountability and solemnity in the exercise of delegated legislative power. The requirement of publication in the Gazette, is therefore not an empty formality. It is an act by which an executive decision is transformed into law. It is precisely for this reason that courts have consistently insisted that strict compliance with the publication requirements is a condition precedent for the enforceability of delegated legislation."

The Bench observed “Once the legislature has prescribed the specified mode of promulgation, the executive cannot introduce an alternative mode and attribute legal consequences to it. A Notification cannot operate in a fragmented manner. In law, it is born only upon publication in the Official Gazette, and it is from that date alone that rights may be curtailed or obligations imposed. To hold otherwise, would permit unpublished delegated legislation to burden citizens, a proposition expressly rejected by this Court in long line of decisions...

Also Read: Motorcyclist Carrying Two Pillion Riders Alone Does Not Establish Contributory Negligence; Kerala High Court Allows Motor Accident Compensation Appeal, Sets Aside 20% Deduction

On the interpretation of the phrase “date of this notification,” the Court recorded that “once it is held that the notification became operative only on publication, the expression must necessarily be construed to mean the date of such publication.” The Bench further observed that denying transitional protection would “introduce uncertainty to a field where certainty is indispensable.”

The Court directed that “the impugned order and judgment dated 21.12.2018 of the High Court is quashed and set aside. The notification issued under Section 3 of the Act acquires the force of law only upon its publication in the Official Gazette.”

“The appellants are held entitled to protection of para 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy.” The Minimum Import Price introduced by the notification “cannot be applied to imports effected pursuant to irrevocable letters of credit opened prior to the date of publication.” The appeals were accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv.(arguing counsel) Mr. Rajesh Rawal, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. N Venkatraman, A.S.G.(NP) Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. V C Bharathi, Adv. (arguing counsel) Mrs. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. G S Makkee Aor, Adv.

Case Title: Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 80
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1979, 2297, 2778 & 1977 of 2019
Bench: Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe